execute u.s. citizens on u.s. soil without a trial. god bless, rand paul. words i never thought i would be saying. we'll have more on this story later tonight. >> goldmangoldman sachs is celebrating that there is a party so loud that no one is going to have to hear the class struggles. plus attorney general holder said the president has the power to attack americans on u.s. soil only extraordinary circumstance. and rand paul filibusters against drone strikes that kills americans and is mocked for for things that most democrats are not liberal enough to talk about. and today is the birthday of
shaquille o'neil. david gilmore of pink floyd and the late lou costello. all that and more ask a tea partyer, this is "viewpoint." [ ♪ theme music ♪ ] >> john: hi, i'm john fugelsang. this is "viewpoint." if it's money you love, and you're a card carrying member of the 1% then happy days are here again. but if you're part of the 99 measures, you may be waiting for some good news about your finances, and it could be a long time coming. because the income inequality in this country is just getting worse. the 1% have seen their incomes rise by over 11% while average numbers for the 99% have dropped
by .4% of an percent. it helps to have bottom line stocks in your investment portfolio. after breaking through a high mark set in 2007 on tuesday the dow closed at 14,296, up 42 points on the day. what a socialist barack obama is. now most analysts credit a boom in corporate profits for the stock market's rise. a boom helped along by our ongoing unemployment crisis which allows managers to get away with not raising wages. in fact, workers wages as a percentage of the economy have slumped since the recovery has kicked in. an income for most households have dropped substantially as well. meanwhile, house republicans don't seem too keen on changing that trend. the house voted to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year, which ends september 30th, but left the sequester in place. most republicans voted yes.
most democrats no. the bill a give the pentagon flexibility in deciding where to cut but did not touch the $85 billion the sequester will cut from the economy, a cut that could cost three-quarters of a million jobs this year, which would boost both the unemployment rate and income inequality. maybe that's exactly what some members of congress really want. for more let's go to economist and roosevelt institute senior fellow jeff madrick welcome back to the show. >> it's good to see. >> john: it's great to see you although under disconcerting circumstances. fdr's theme song was "happy days are here again." i would like to say with the record set for the dui we would like to say that happy day for most americans but that the knows the case. >> that's not the case yet. it seems more repulsive that this is going on.
stocks rising, brokers doing great. banks are making lots of profits. corporations have lots of profits, and you're entirely right in your intro one big reason is wages are down. but the market often looks ahead. the market is by no means infallible. it's often fallible, but it also looks ahead. maybe something else is going on there. because housing is coming back, healthcare costs aren't rising so rapidly. it could be that if we could only get this austerity his at thisatthishiysterichysterics, if we could get that off of our back, the economy could come back. >> john: it's no huge secret that 99% is paying for the paying for the party the 1% had last decade. is there a way to explain the gap and the economy that most
americans are struggling still under? >> we've already done that. unemployment is high. wages are down. they can often ship jobs overseas or buy products from overseas. it's easy to build up corporate profits that way. that is to some degree driving the markets. but maybe something in the future is driving the market as well. i think there is an easy way to explain it. >> john: federal reservists are supposed to be playing a role in boosting employment, are they doing their job? >> they're trying very hard. let me say something in defense of federal reserve. >> john: please do. >> they're keeping interest rates down. they're buying long-term securities. they're doing all this in part because the fiscal side, the treasury congress, are not doing their part. they should be spending, not cutting back. it's something of a tragedy that we're cutting back. i tell you it's pure out
tragedy. we're cutting out when we need fiscal stimulus. we already did it last year. we could be on the verge of a normal economy again and the austerity economics which i think is totally intellectually bankrupt is keeping us from doing what we need to do. >> john: but many think that's how you're going to be re-elected. >> that's what is keeping the opposition from getting elected sure that's what they think. there is a kind of misdirection, a magicians misdirection. the republicans and to some degree the democrats are telling us let's look way out to to 2025 and 2030 when medicare starts rising and medicaid starts rising and starts really pushing up that federal deficit. let's look way out there. keep your eye on that ball. in the meantime we'll pick your pocket today and get medicare
and social security now to take care of that problem--let me say one technical thing. >> john: please do. >> that projection of huge medicare and medicaid expenditures around. 2027, 2028 that projection is based on a forecast of a rise in healthcare costs that is just not going to happen. we've had four years of healthcare costs rising at the same rate as gdp. the congressional budget office, which is called nonpartisan is hardly nonpartisan. it's a very conservative economic model and its saying that those rapid growth and healthcare cuts are going to keep going up. it's going to undermine the economy. those healthcare costs likely will not go up, and we're not going to have--i know i'm getting a little technical here. >> john: no, not at all. >> but we should be weary of this. >> it's fascinating when you get
past how scary it is. now income and equality, we're almost out of time,, do you see any politician or any group right now making that their top priority at all, jeff? >> i have a big problem that there isn't. it's too bad that they got evicted from the zuccotti park. they did a pretty darn good job of doing that in the old days but everyone is talking about deficits balancing the budget. when obama flew in the towel before his 2009, talking about how he had to worry about deficits, we started losing the game and getting a strong recovery. >> john: you should stick around for tonight's f-block when we talk about how much money america blew in iraq. >> i know it's a big number. >> john: it's despicable. jeff madrick, thank you so much for coming on the program.
>> good to see you. >> john: now president obama is taking heat from liberals for offering to cut programs as part of a fiscal deal with the g.o.p. but a lot of conservatives refuse to believe that. apparently including fox news host bill o'reilly who lost it on his show last night when sacrificial talked about the program. >> name one damn program. >> why do you want to yell? >> because you're lying. >> don't sit there and call me a liar. >> tell me one program he said he would cut. >> he would cut medicare and medicaid. >> that's not program. >> you asked me a program. those are programs. those are programs. >> all he wants to do is raise taxes. that's it. >> john: it's good to know that the old sean hannity screaming
still works in studio. but if you look at the president's plan on the white house website i know you don't like the internet, but you would see cuts like $400 billion in health savings made by reducing payments to drug companies hospitals by $30 billion. encouraging efficient care for savings of $50 billion. refiguring social security for savings of $130 billion. but bill o'reilly is far from the, alot of so-called objecttive observers have have this claim that both sides are equally to blame for the sequester. according to the washington post claims neither party has staked out anything like a serious negotiating position. is bill o'reilly writing for the post now? what are we doing here.
i'm joined by eric boelert. who wrote a great column this week. eric welcome. >> thanks. >> john: there is this disease and it's called false equivalent syndrome. it seems to be rampant with a lot of liberals, i got to say. can you explain where this is coming from, and why it's so severe this week. >> it's coming from everywhere and it's mostly men who dominate the beltway media and they both decided in this showdown with republicans, and virtually all of them have decided either both sides are to blame or obama is at fault. so the idea is, the complaint is obama is not leading. the press is basically becaming obama for not changing republican behavior. as i wrote they've literally
been doing this since the week he was inaugurated in 2009. the beltway press set up a brand new rule when it cames to obama republicans, and bipartisanship and the very simple rule was if the two sides don't agree it's obama's fault. now if obama had stiff-armed republicans or refuseed to budge if he had just told them take a hike i'm the president. that's one thing. but he has made a balanced pitch for the deficit reduction plan, and he's trying to meet them in the middle, and what is the republican response? no, we will not take revenue increases. they will not change their radical position so she blame obama. >> john: this all goes back to the debt ceiling crisis which they raised for reagan and bush, but not for this guy. one thing that i learned in this business is that it's the liberal media. it's not liberal but people
terrified of being called liberal. that's the root of so much of this no, it's obama's fault as well. not that he's blameless but do you think that's why the media is bending over backwards to say that both sides are to blame. >> this media worships republican hard ball. they did it during the clinton years, the bush years they love it when republicans take off the glove, and they're not obstructionists or things like that. they're being savvy. they're being smart they're being political. that's one reason. they love republican hard ball, and republicans have been playing hard ball with obama since day one. they love to see themselves at centrists. if you're the in the center you have to blame both sides by definition. why can't we all meet in the middle. why can't democrats and republicans get along if they could just come together. when they don't come together you have to blame both sides even though the republicans will not move off their starting point, even though obama just
won an an an electoral landslide victory, it's unremarkable unprecedented standard. >> john: let's be fair. the president is not blameless. you could say he's guilty of thinking that lucy was not going to pull the football out this time and filling the americans with hearts full of fear over the disastrous cuts that will happen. they're going to come take way your home, we'll be poor, and then some would say clunkly trying to walk that back when it became clear these cuts would not have an immediate affect on the country. we see the g.o.p. bludgeon him with this. is it fair to say that both sides are to blame but the notion that it's equal is
ridiculous. >> john: your blame is strategy. how are we going to play this, how are we going to explain it to the public, did they go overboard in terms of the explanation. but in terms of the en pass and why this deadline was not reached, you cannot argue that both sides are to blame. it began the first week of his inauguration, it has run throughout thinks administration. if you're a republican obstructionist and the press blames obama for your behavior, why a you would you change your behavior? in the hagueelin the hagel nomination this was hard ball by the republicans. >> john: we have to get a republican back in the white house or the republicans in congress will never complain about deficit again for the rest of their lives. >> exactly.
>> john: eric beolhert. thank you for joining us on the show. >> john: one patriot stood up against drones, and dear god it was rand paul. that's next. [ male announcer ] it's red lobster's lobsterfest our largest selection of lobster entrees like lobster lover's dream or new grilled lobster and lobster tacos. come in now and sea food differently. visit redlobster.com now for an exclusive $10 coupon on two lobsterfest entrees.
rich, chewy caramel rolled up in smooth milk chocolate. don't forget about that payroll meeting. rolo.get your smooth on. also in minis. irene, drop the itch. we dropped the itch, you can too. with maximum strength scalpicin®. it's not a shampoo so you can stop intense itch fast wherever you are. i dropped the itch. free yourself from embarrassing scalp itch. drop the itch with maximum strength scalpicin®. also available scalpicin® 2 in 1, itch relief plus dandruff control.
says fracking has gotten safer since 2008. but that just means boy it sure is a good thing new york has had a moratorium on fracking since since 2008. think about how much safer it will be in 2015. some pig flying over frozen hell. i know i've mix metaphorred. i can do that because and this is painful because i really agree with rand paul. the old school would not stop cutting for over hours. john brennan head of c.i.a. because the president's authority to order a lethal drone strike in the united states. it is possible, i suppose to, imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the constitution and applicable laws of the united states for the president to authorize the military to use lethal force within the
territory of the united states. well now that should make every citizen guaranteed due process by the constitution feel safe. let's bring in aclu senior legislative counsel christopher anders and raha wala, advocacy counsel in the law and security program at human rights first. thank you both for coming on the show tonight. christopher, how string is it when i have someone from the aclu on to support the actions of senator rand paul who is quoteing groan greenwald charles pierce on the senate floor. >> i think what's really key here is that this issue has been around for a couple of years but the senate over the last couple of weeks, they have
focused in on this very broad claims the president has made that he can order the killing of people far from any battlefield including the united states citizens. and what senator paul asked is a very simple question. it was do you mr. president believe you have the authority to kill american citizens use a drone to kill american citizens on american soil. the answer to that should have been, of course, no. but there is dodging around, and refusing to answer the question by the president himself by john brennan the candidate to be c.i.a. director and today by the attorney general eric holder. it should be disturbing to everybody, whatever party that you belong to, that you could have three top officials of the government including it's president of the united states who cannot answer or refuses to answer that very straightforward question. >> john: raha, what do you make
of the attorney general holder's letter. while most of us would probably agree that the president has the right to use exceptional measures to repel an attack on the homeland, holder he's letter seems almost purposefully vague. >> it's coming in a context in which we have a drone program that is basically secret. we have drone strikes overseas over active zones of hostilities occurring with rules we have not seen and quite frankly members of the oversight committee has not seen. the obama administration was legal to hand over legal memos outlining legal analysis to the intelligence committees but the judiciary committees that have oversight over the department of justice have not received these memorandum. we feel like we're in a twilight zone with a filibuster and i
think the obama administration, president obama and the state of the union promised more transparency for the drone program. we're waiting to see that now and really hope that the president comes forward and does a better job of explaining the targeted killing program. >> john: i agree. it was strange to see so many senators and congressmen who supported mdaa a and patriot act and opposing the attacking filibuster because they didn't like the merges the the messengers where is the line and who gets to draw that line. if we know there is a terrorist in this country but he does not pose an emanant threat does the president has the right to order a drone strike on him? >> the basic thing is we don't know. that's the many that all of us
have because we don't know. the president and his administration has kept so many details of this program secret including the legal opinion on the authority the president is claiming to kill anyone far from battlefield including u.s. citizens. people should tune in to this because this is really a historic moment. go to c-span. watch it. urge your senator to be part of it, but what they're demanding is give us the basic legal opinion. you don't have to give us every detail of the program but let us see for ourselves what authority it is that you're claiming to kill basically your own citizen. such an extraordinary claim that the president seems to be making that certainly we all should have the right to know what the rules are that the president is applying. that's really the very basic question that senator paul is
asking to be answered. one of the things that was good today is that there were a number of senators coming in, mostly republicans, but certainly senator widen, who has been a proponent of the president turning over the rules of the road for this killing program, he went to the senate floor and supported senator paul on this. this is something that all senators should be demanding. this is part of checks and balances between congress and the president. this really is a moment. if the president can continue to make these broad claims and hide the rules from congress, which should be part of the checks and balances then we're not going to have that constitutional separation of powers be very meaningful. this really is a key moment for i think the country and people should really tune in to it.
>> john: i agree. it seems like an area where lots of progressives, libertarians and conservatives could find unsuspecting common ground. raha how did this letter compare to john hughes memos. is this the same amount of thing that there is wiggle room where they can do what they want in regards to legal law. >> the john yoo's memos, the opinion, and in this instance, a letter from the attorney general, a very brief letter from the attorney general in the case of the john yoo memos there was analysis that was erroneous and that was acknowledged pretty much by every professional lawyer that looked at that opinion. the holder memo, like i said before is perhaps not the most elegantly worded, but i think what it is getting at is the idea that maybe in very exigent
extreme circumstances there could be some uses of force. but again the bigger problem is that the administration has not been forthcoming with congress, forth coming with the american people about the killing and what are the rules of targeted killing of drone strikes both domestically and abroad. >> john: and with speculation what other presidents would do with these powers down the road. thank you so much, christopher anders, and raha wala, again, we could go on this all night. i hope you'll come back, but thank you so much for your time. >> thanks for having us. >> john: why is wall street so happy when nobody else is? coming up. our micro-thin blades are thinner than a surgeon's scalpel to put less stress on your skin by gliding through hair. fusion proglide from gillette. the best a man can get.
save them. woolite everyday cleans your jeans and won't torture your tanks. woolite washed clothes look like new, longer. [ rosa ] i'm rosa and i quit smoking with chantix. when the doctor told me that i could smoke for the first week... i'm like...yeah, ok... little did i know that one week later i wasn't smoking. [ male announcer ] along with support chantix is proven to help people quit smoking. it reduces the urge to smoke. some people had changes in behavior, thinking or mood hostility, agitation
depressed mood and suicidal thoughts or actions while taking or after stopping chantix. if you notice any of these stop taking chantix and call your doctor right away. tell your doctor about any history of depression or other mental health problems which could get worse while taking chantix. don't take chantix if you've had a serious allergic or skin reaction to it. if you develop these stop taking chantix and see your doctor right away as some can be life-threatening. if you have a history of heart or blood vessel problems tell your doctor if you have new or worse symptoms. get medical help right away if you have symptoms of a heart attack. use caution when driving or operating machinery. common side effects include nausea trouble sleeping and unusual dreams. it helps to have people around you... they say you're much bigger than this. and you are. [ male announcer ] ask your doctor if chantix is right for you.
do not watch the next minute if you have a delicate condition and cannot handle stories of self-serving hypocritical congressmen behaving like total d-bags. the pennsylvania congressman in question, keith rothfus and tim murphy both republicans, both with press releases boasting that they reauthorized the violence against women act. this would be totally awesome if it weren't totally untrue. if you have phoney press releases that announce your personal virtue. both of these republicans voted against the violence against women act that passed the house but they did vote for the earlier version that failed. that was the version of the bill where no protection was given to lgbt or undocumented immigrants
or native american women who live on reservations. they got no coverage of the bill that these guys voted for because we all know that no face feels pain when it's not white: protecting women from domestic violence all women of domestic violence is popular among decent american citizens, so they decided to take credit for passing a bill that they both tried to prevent from passing. wtf, pennsylvania, two of your g.o.p. congressmen are not going to win any awards for honesty or integrity. on the bright side their press releases are eligible for defeat in pulitzer prize in fiction.
finally feel good about themselves again. as we see from this instagram photos. they held a plush gala for their new partners for the first time in 2016. 2006. they welcomed a graduateing class. goldman used to rock the casbah like this every couple of years but they canceled it in 2008 deciding not to flaunt their wealth the same year they took a bailout. this year they're reaching new highs. profit was $2.9 billion. they paid the loan back. fire thousands of employees and everything is going to be great from now on. but funny thing. outside wall street the u.s. median house income continues rolling down hill. unemployment won't budget and the government is dropping more jobs to pay for the bush tax cuts over 80% which are still with us. why does wall street seem so celebrateary let's bring in kevin
roose. >> thankthank you for having me. >> john: this story is interesting go i got a tip that this party was happening. i cover the banks so for kicks i went on social media sites to find evidence, facebook status, tweets. >> john: is this common? >> i like to do it with the banks because they're so tightly controlled. they don't let anything out of these banks. the first rule about goldman sachs is you don't talk about goldman sachs. once in a while they let something slip. when i typed in goldman sachs and did my instagram search feed up came these pictures taken by a cocktail wait waitress, she had these lavish pictures and said it was like the golden
globes of investment banking. i then knew i had a good story. >> john: what do you think tipped the scales? what do you think made goldman think it's okay to bring back this excessive party? >> two years ago four years ago it was not appropriate. we had just been through the bailouts. goldman sachs was being protested and occupied. >> john: they needed this money for their million dollar bonuses. >> they did needed money. they were cutting way back, including their yearly christmas party, which they canceled. >> john: and boasted of canceling. >> they would have these lavish occasions. they brought in harry connick jr. to play one year, then they canceled it. what tipped the scales this year is they did have this good cart. $2.9 billion in profit. it's four years ago that lehman brothers went down. we can let our hair down a little bit. >> john: in fairness, they have a right to do whatever they want to do. but this new group of 70 partners is the smallest class
they've ever had since the company went public. do you see any change in wall street culture now post 2006-2008? >> yes, wall street is smaller. there have been 30,000 layoffs in the financial sector just in new york. only a fraction of those jobs have come back. it's a smaller sector, and i think because of dodd-frank and other regulations systemic risk has been removed. there is more to do on that front, but it is humbler but as with this party, traces of the old culture remains. >> cenk: do you think the government can do anything to rein in abuses or is it incumbent for us to trust that they will monitor themselves. >> there will be parties like this. it is well within goldman's right to do this. they are a profitable firm. they should be able to celebrate however they want to, but i think the way the government can
help prevent the pre-crisis bubble and the mentality that develops is to rein in some of the risk in the financial system. i think we're trying to do that, but it will be a long haul. >> john: i think your job is fascinating. you cover these guys. you talk with these guys. it's all conservative all the way, is that really the case? or do you find that the democratic party has a place at the table, too. >> the democratic party has a place at the table. goldman, for example they've had members of both political parties. john corzine democrat, and. >> john: the paragons. >> yes i think they split the difference but they probably skew republican. >> john: still? i think the democrats will just have to try to beg for campaign cash even harder from the wall street criminals. kevin roose business writer. i'm glad they're doing well, but i wish they would not have had
>> john: welcome back to "viewpoint"." today senator rand paul got his jefferson smith on and did a real actual filibuster. it was amazing to watch. on facebook michael dillon brennan wrote, i don't like him and most of the time, he's he's a tool. he has a point. i totally agree. michael, rand paul certainly has a point. and he certainly can be a tool. but when you want to fix things, sometimes, my friend, it takes a tool. if you have a comment for the show, tweet us at "viewpoint" ctv or john fugelsang or use # #viewpoint or post it on our facebook page. where does the tea party stand on today's political climate?
last month karl rove started a super pac called the conservative victory fund oh whose stated goal is to support a conservative candidate who can win. a clear shot at past tea party candidates. meanwhile, long-time tea party favorite rand paul's exhaustive filibuster attacking the obama administrations christian drone program is something many democrats would like to hear from some of their own representatives. with mixed reactions coming from both republicans and democrats the tea party is clearly still in influential and christian movement, one that leaves many people wondering about its future. i'm please to welcome back to the show, the one and only scotty nell hughes. >> i'm going to lowes. he laid the hammer down today. >> our democratic contestant is contributor forbes.com who in his tree time likes collecting camps, volunteering for you his
local pta and the reigning champion of the westchester county annual chili cook off welcome rick ungar and our republican contestant, the author of "the complete idiot's guide to comedy writing" pleads welcome jim mendrinos. >> are we on jeopardy? we need a theme song. >> john: until the new guys take over we don't have that. florida governor rick scott is now distancing himself from the tea party after using them to get elected. rick ungar of forbes what would you like to ask the tea partyer. >> i would like to say that i'm playing for the senate's democrat retirement home. all proceeds will go there. it's a long question, it says, and did i write it, so we're clear. isn't governor scott's willingness to accept the medicaid expansion from
obama-care and his general move to the center in effort to manage re-election next year proof that the party is winding down for the tea party? >> eeh, false. is governor scott really even a republican any more? he's a rockefeller republican. he's going to go into area category of republican. but the problem is florida is bankrupt. they have so many people right now. >> because of him. >> yes, politicians never lie and they never spin things. >> this is what he said today. it's fascinating. he said the way he's behaving the way he is is because now there is money in florida. now he can spend money because they have it. that's about as anti-tea party as it gets. >> we're glad he's no longer a part of one of us. there used to be a lot of money in detroit. but detroit is bankrupt, and michigan is having to take over. >> john: let's have a republican
weigh in. what do you want to ask the tea partyer. >> it goes extreme one way or another, how can the tea party reinvent itself so it can grab back the far right people who are pissed off to the tea party. >> the reason why we lost in this last election is because they gave us moderate. somewhere the establishment sorry, rockefeller republicans kept telling us that moderates are the ones that win. >> or did the moderates buy the election. >> he bought it by slandering all the true conservatives who were in there and we lost. >> john: is it safe to say citizens united allowed the moderates to ruin it for the tea party. >> establishment republicans allowed it to ruin it for the tea party. the establishment got very scared in '08 and '10 when we had the power and we were getting things accomplished. if we want another democrat elected for president we need to make sure that they have another moderate running on the ticket,
hint, jeb bush gets into the race. >> john: let's move on. we have very little time and it's great to know that tea party people will laugh when i call rick scott voldemort. the cpac is coming up in a week, and the tea party is pretty much the star of the event. however this year shooting conservative star chris christie has not been invited. jim, i want to you start on this one. what would you like to ask the tea partyer. >> whether either your side or my side likes it the tea party and republican seem to be linked in public opinion. how can you have a meeting of conservatives without these single most recognizable conservative republicans in the country attending. >> i don't consider conservative--this is the number one reason where they did not invite--second to the stimulus there is nothing else that will bankrupt the country. lay off the acu and cpac. they want win. first they get in trouble for not inviting chris christie. then they get in trouble for not
inviting the anti-sharif beam. >> john: we're talking about it. >> good and bad but you got a beef with the acu, take it off. once you're hurting the conservatives on the part of our conservative organization, county attorneykeeppeople they're hurting the sponsors we're a partner in cpac this year. >> john: follow up. >> yes for an organization, the tea party that hangs it's banner on states right, they had a right to say they had the sandy bill. he had a right to do that. you're punishing him for doing something that he say he has the right to do. it's hypocrisy. >> john: topic number three. tea party electric ability. moving closer to the mainstream g.o.p. he published a book, he wants you to buy it, by he doesn't
want to you read the part on immigration. >> jeb bush wrote this book. >> a year ago. >> a year ago. since that time--now he moved to the left when he wrote that book. what happened in between is that the senate republicans moved even farther to the left. so now will the tea party support jeb bush. >> mario rubio the tea party supports marco rubio on 9% of policies. >> on immigration. >> he has a lot of family tradition, that's why he has that immigration belief. jeb, mitt romney, bowl dole bob dole. we're going to learn if we want to the white house back. >> if the tea party is not able to hold for something as big as immigration, how are they going to make inroads in states that are not traditional red states. >> there are much bigger issues
than immigration facing the tea party. let's talk about getting this country money making again. >> you said the tea party was about economics. what has a bigger impact on economics than the immigration issue. >> i agree 100%. >> john: it's time to declare a winner and when we play ask a tea partyer, the winner is tea partyer scotty nell. >> thanks. >> john: i want to thank my guests. thank you for playing our little game. you can't win the white house without 60% of the latino vote. do you want to know where the deficit came from? guess how much the iraq war cost. it's higher. it's in the f-bomb coming up next. featuring two kinds of lobster tails. (vo) she gets the comedians laughing and the thinkers thinking. >>ok, so there's wiggle room in the ten commandments, that's what you're saying.
>> john: so for tonight's f-bomb we cover a report that effects all of us because it's from stewart bowen the inspector for iraqry construction. he's the guy whose job is to notified congress of how much money was spent on iraq invasion reconstruction. maybe the iraq war wasn't a great war from the money perspective. i could quote you highlights from the report. how the reconstruction grew to a size much larger than anticipated or how not enough was accomplished for the size of the funds extended. wow, who knew. he was just talking about the $60 billion taxpayer money that went to the iraq reconstruction budget. $60 billion or $15 million per
day. just to give you scale. that's more than current tv pays me in a whole month. and it's relevant. under the austerity politics of d.c. we have democrats and mostly republicans telling us how we need to cut spend to go rebuild america after ten years of non-stop spend to go rebuild iraq after we blew it up. let's go back to time to ten years ago this month. back when defense secretary donald rumsfeld was telling us how invading iraq would pay for itself. once we were there they said we could not leave because iran would invade iraq and create the group eye rangk. and the war would kill more soldiers and iraqis and make a few businessmen and oil companies very, very reach who was right? well, according to the report the taxpayer spent $40 million for a